MUSLIMS ARE NOT TERRORISTS AND TERRORISTS ARE NOT MUSLIMS

[mainpmf]

This kind of "there were lot worse killers in human history than us" argument looks a bit flawed for me. I don't care who killed who 70, 200, or 2000 years ago. Muslims are a present and future danger, therefore they are something we have to take care of.

Ok great and how do you take care of it?
And btw, what do you do about the hundreds of thousands of suicides every year caused by the ruthless market freedom? Don't you feel it's more important or do you need to see bombs exploding to see it like a real attack?

[Snail2]

Ok great and how do you take care of it?
And btw, what do you do about the hundreds of thousands of suicides every year caused by the ruthless market freedom? Don't you feel it's more important or do you need to see bombs exploding to see it like a real attack?

The expression "take care of" can mean a lot of things from talking to them on a civilised manner to "...und fegen alle diese Untermenschen von der Erdkarte" type solutions, depending on politicians, oil prices and public opinion .
Free markets are part of our life and unfortunately sometimes it comes for a price, but the other alternative ways (sorts of egalitarian, planned economy) all failed miserably, so like it or not at this time there are no working alternative. BTW bitcoin is all about free market...

[mainpmf]

Ok great and how do you take care of it?
And btw, what do you do about the hundreds of thousands of suicides every year caused by the ruthless market freedom? Don't you feel it's more important or do you need to see bombs exploding to see it like a real attack?

The expression "take care of" can mean a lot of things from talking to them on a civilised manner to "...und fegen alle diese Untermenschen von der Erdkarte" type solutions, depending on politicians, oil prices and public opinion .
Free markets are part of our life and unfortunately sometimes it comes for a price, but the other alternative ways (sorts of egalitarian, planned economy) all failed miserably, so like it or not at this time there are no working alternative. BTW bitcoin is all about free market...

Oh they failed? Funny me I thought Cube was a rather successful try especially considering how the USA fucked them up without any kind of reason (not that they need any reason they're the USA). Cause capitalism is a success? Wanna tell that to 80% of the world?

It's cool how the fact that free market had been tried in nearly the whole world and is currently not working and destroying everything but it's ok, and how egalitarian policies as you say have been tries only 3 times with one really successful.

[McDonalds5]

9th Surah command muslims to kill every non-muslim on earth.

[Snail2]

Oh they failed? Funny me I thought Cube was a rather successful try especially considering how the USA fucked them up without any kind of reason (not that they need any reason they're the USA). Cause capitalism is a success? Wanna tell that to 80% of the world?

It's cool how the fact that free market had been tried in nearly the whole world and is currently not working and destroying everything but it's ok, and how egalitarian policies as you say have been tries only 3 times with one really successful.

Yes, they failed for sure. I've witnessed the last years of that experiment, so I know . Cuba stayed alive for so long because of the support they've got from other socialist states. I can remember when my country often bought tens of thousands tons of sugar for astronomic prices for helping the cuban comrades, however we actually exported sugar too.

Yes, capitalism is a success, or at least more successful than socialism ever been. Of course it's far from perfect, but because of the lack of working alternatives it's still the best what we have in hand.

Actually what isn't working and destroying everything is rather centralized global market, where a very few entities holding almost all economic power. That's the problem, and that's why we need to return to a more localized, scaled down form of capitalism, where market is really free.

Which one is successful? China? China became successful only after they switched to a capitalist economy where the communist party held the legislative, judiciary and executive power, but let the economy controlled by the market.

[Spendulus]

Ok great and how do you take care of it?
And btw, what do you do about the hundreds of thousands of suicides every year caused by the ruthless market freedom? Don't you feel it's more important or do you need to see bombs exploding to see it like a real attack?

The expression "take care of" can mean a lot of things from talking to them on a civilised manner to "...und fegen alle diese Untermenschen von der Erdkarte" type solutions, depending on politicians, oil prices and public opinion .
Free markets are part of our life and unfortunately sometimes it comes for a price, but the other alternative ways (sorts of egalitarian, planned economy) all failed miserably, so like it or not at this time there are no working alternative. BTW bitcoin is all about free market...

Oh they failed? Funny me I thought Cube was a rather successful try especially considering how the USA fucked them up without any kind of reason (not that they need any reason they're the USA). Cause capitalism is a success? Wanna tell that to 80% of the world?

It's cool how the fact that free market had been tried in nearly the whole world and is currently not working and destroying everything but it's ok, and how egalitarian policies as you say have been tries only 3 times with one really successful.

NO.  Cuba was abject failure.  Except for running an entire country on cars that became classic cars, maybe.

[yugo23]

Oh they failed? Funny me I thought Cube was a rather successful try especially considering how the USA fucked them up without any kind of reason (not that they need any reason they're the USA). Cause capitalism is a success? Wanna tell that to 80% of the world?

It's cool how the fact that free market had been tried in nearly the whole world and is currently not working and destroying everything but it's ok, and how egalitarian policies as you say have been tries only 3 times with one really successful.

Actually what isn't working and destroying everything is rather centralized global market, where a very few entities holding almost all economic power. That's the problem, and that's why we need to return to a more localized, scaled down form of capitalism, where market is really free.

Just coming into this part, how can you make a non globalized free market?

If you have a free market, at a local range, the most successful company will eat the others. The company will grow until it absorbs all the others. Look at the banks or the nutrition industry. Now something like 5 banks and 6 companies control the whole sectors. What do you want to do against that if you have a free market?

[mainpmf]

Oh they failed? Funny me I thought Cube was a rather successful try especially considering how the USA fucked them up without any kind of reason (not that they need any reason they're the USA). Cause capitalism is a success? Wanna tell that to 80% of the world?

It's cool how the fact that free market had been tried in nearly the whole world and is currently not working and destroying everything but it's ok, and how egalitarian policies as you say have been tries only 3 times with one really successful.

Yes, they failed for sure. I've witnessed the last years of that experiment, so I know . Cuba stayed alive for so long because of the support they've got from other socialist states. I can remember when my country often bought tens of thousands tons of sugar for astronomic prices for helping the cuban comrades, however we actually exported sugar too.

]NO.  Cuba was abject failure.  Except for running an entire country on cars that became classic cars, maybe.

Well I've witness Cuba by my own eyes and sorry but I wouldn't have called that a failure.
Yeah cars are a bit old but it's not because of the economy simply because USA makes it impossible for any country to make exportation to it. And they had free education for everyone, free healthcare, both of excellent quality.

I don't call an educated population, having access to health care (one of the bests in the world, so good they launched international operations to help other countries) and to every basic needs a failure. Especially considering the embargo of USA.

[Spendulus]

Oh they failed? Funny me I thought Cube was a rather successful try especially considering how the USA fucked them up without any kind of reason (not that they need any reason they're the USA). Cause capitalism is a success? Wanna tell that to 80% of the world?

It's cool how the fact that free market had been tried in nearly the whole world and is currently not working and destroying everything but it's ok, and how egalitarian policies as you say have been tries only 3 times with one really successful.

Yes, they failed for sure. I've witnessed the last years of that experiment, so I know . Cuba stayed alive for so long because of the support they've got from other socialist states. I can remember when my country often bought tens of thousands tons of sugar for astronomic prices for helping the cuban comrades, however we actually exported sugar too.

]NO.  Cuba was abject failure.  Except for running an entire country on cars that became classic cars, maybe.

Well I've witness Cuba by my own eyes and sorry but I wouldn't have called that a failure.
Yeah cars are a bit old but it's not because of the economy simply because USA makes it impossible for any country to make exportation to it. And they had free education for everyone, free healthcare, both of excellent quality.

I don't call an educated population, having access to health care (one of the bests in the world, so good they launched international operations to help other countries) and to every basic needs a failure. Especially considering the embargo of USA.

How many dollars worth of assets were stolen by Castro when he took over?  See bolded above.   "Fucked them without any reason?"

How many people killed?

Here is what Wikipedia says.

In February 1959, the Ministry for the Recovery of Misappropriated Assets (Ministerio de Recuperación de Bienes Malversados) was created. Cuba began expropriating land and private property under the auspices of the Agrarian Reform Law of 17 May 1959. Farms of any size could be and were seized by the government, while land, businesses, and companies owned by upper- and middle-class Cubans were nationalized (notably, including the plantations owned by Fidel Castro's family). By the end of 1960, the revolutionary government had nationalized more than $25 billion worth of private property owned by Cubans.[10] The Castro government formally nationalized all foreign-owned property, particularly American holdings, in the nation on 6 August 1960.[11]

In 1961, the Cuban government nationalized all property held by religious organizations, including the dominant Roman Catholic Church. Hundreds of members of the church, including a bishop, were permanently expelled from the nation, as the new Cuban government declared itself officially atheist. Education also saw significant changes – private schools were banned and the progressively socialist state assumed greater responsibility for children.[57]

Here is what Wikipedia says about the US reaction against Cuba.

the American government was initially willing to recognize Castro's new government..... After the revolutionary government nationalized all U.S. property in Cuba in August 1960, the American Eisenhower administration froze all Cuban assets on American soil, severed diplomatic ties


Sorry, I am not seeing evidence that the US "Fucked them without any reason."  I am seeing lots of reasons for retaliating against the "Fucked them without any reason" that Castro did.  NOTE that Castro could have navigated his way through his revolution and remained friends with the US.  By treating people reasonably fairly.

Please don't confuse Cause, and Effect.

[jackg]

FACTS:
All terrorists are of their own branch of religion.
Ones who call themselves Muslim are EXTREMIST MUSLIMS or EXTREMIST

The term EXTREMIST is the only way to describe their religion and they believe themselves to be a member of the Muslim faith. 

Hitler killed Jews as they were the only ones he had power to kill. In history, Jews have always been very intelligent and good a business, Hitler supposedly killed them in order to get backing of large amounts of people!

[Spendulus]

FACTS:
All terrorists are of their own branch of religion.
Ones who call themselves Muslim are EXTREMIST MUSLIMS or EXTREMIST

The term EXTREMIST is the only way to describe their religion and they believe themselves to be a member of the Muslim faith. 

So...

TERRORISTS ARE NOT (NON EXTREMIST) MUSLIMS AND (NON EXTREMIST) MUSLIMS ARE NOT TERRORISTS?

But that's not what the OP wants us to believe, is it?  He does not want your precise definition.

He simply wants people to believe that terrorists are not muslims....

[af_newbie]

FACTS:
All terrorists are of their own branch of religion.
Ones who call themselves Muslim are EXTREMIST MUSLIMS or EXTREMIST

The term EXTREMIST is the only way to describe their religion and they believe themselves to be a member of the Muslim faith.  

Hitler killed Jews as they were the only ones he had power to kill. In history, Jews have always been very intelligent and good a business, Hitler supposedly killed them in order to get backing of large amounts of people!

All religious people are extremists in a way.  Believing in an invisible man in the sky is kinda extreme, don't you think.
Believing anything without evidence is extreme.  

Virgin birth, walking on water, manna from heaven, flying horses etc. are all extreme nonsense.

[yugo23]

FACTS:
All terrorists are of their own branch of religion.
Ones who call themselves Muslim are EXTREMIST MUSLIMS or EXTREMIST

The term EXTREMIST is the only way to describe their religion and they believe themselves to be a member of the Muslim faith. 

So...

TERRORISTS ARE NOT (NON EXTREMIST) MUSLIMS AND (NON EXTREMIST) MUSLIMS ARE NOT TERRORISTS?

But that's not what the OP wants us to believe, is it?  He does not want your precise definition.

He simply wants people to believe that terrorists are not muslims....

Well, when you think about it, terrorists cant really be muslims. Islam is not really different from Christianity in a sense, and in both killing the innocent or killing yourself is a major sin.

So the terrorists blowing themselves in suicidal attacks are in fact doubly condemned to Hell is they're Muslims xD

[Spendulus]

FACTS:
All terrorists are of their own branch of religion.
Ones who call themselves Muslim are EXTREMIST MUSLIMS or EXTREMIST

The term EXTREMIST is the only way to describe their religion and they believe themselves to be a member of the Muslim faith. 

So...

TERRORISTS ARE NOT (NON EXTREMIST) MUSLIMS AND (NON EXTREMIST) MUSLIMS ARE NOT TERRORISTS?

But that's not what the OP wants us to believe, is it?  He does not want your precise definition.

He simply wants people to believe that terrorists are not muslims....

Well, when you think about it, terrorists cant really be muslims. Islam is not really different from Christianity in a sense, and in both killing the innocent or killing yourself is a major sin.

So the terrorists blowing themselves in suicidal attacks are in fact doubly condemned to Hell is they're Muslims xD

Was Yassir Arafat a Muslim?

[Tyrantt]

In the HISTORY of the world, who has KILLED maximum INNOCENT
human beings

1) "Hitler"
Do you know who he was

He was a Christian, but media will never call Christians terrorists.

2) "Joseph Stalin called as Uncle Joe".

He has killed 20 million human beings including 14.5 million were starved to death.

Was he a Muslim

3) "Mao Tse Tsung (China)"

He has killed 14 to 20 million human beings.

Was he a Muslim

4) "Benito Mussolini (Italy)"

He has killed 400 thousand human beings.

Was he a Muslim

5) "Ashoka" In Kalinga Battle

He has killed 100 thousand human beings.

Was he a Muslim

6) Embargo put by George Bush in Iraq,

1/2 million children
has been killed in Iraq alone!!! Imagine these people are never called terrorists by the media.

Why

Today the majority of the non-muslims are afraid by hearing the words "JIHAD".

Jihad is an Arabic word which comes from root Arabic word "JAHADA" which means "TO STRIVE" or "TO STRUGGLE" against evil and for justice. It does not
mean killing innocents.

The difference is we stand against evil, not with evil".

You still think that ISLAM is the problem

1. The First World War, 17 million dead
(caused by non-Muslim).

2. The Second World War, 50-55 million dead (caused by non-Muslim).

3. Nagasaki atomic bombs 200000 dead
(caused by non-Muslim).

4. The War in Vietnam, over 5 million dead (caused by non-Muslim).

5. The War in Bosnia/Kosovo, over 5,00,000 dead (caused by non-Muslim).

6. The War in Iraq (so far) 12,000,000 deaths
(caused by non-Muslim).

7. Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Burma etc (caused by non-Muslim).

8. In Cambodia 1975-1979, almost 3 million deaths (caused by non-Muslim).

"MUSLIMS ARE NOT TERRORISTS
AND
TERRORISTS ARE NOT MUSLIMS."

Please remove first double standards on Killings.

What about today?

[Spendulus]

In the HISTORY of the world, who has KILLED maximum INNOCENT
human beings

1) "Hitler"
Do you know who he was

He was a Christian, but media will never call Christians terrorists.

2) "Joseph Stalin called as Uncle Joe".

He has killed 20 million human beings including 14.5 million were starved to death.

Was he a Muslim

3) "Mao Tse Tsung (China)"

He has killed 14 to 20 million human beings.

Was he a Muslim

4) "Benito Mussolini (Italy)"

He has killed 400 thousand human beings.

Was he a Muslim

5) "Ashoka" In Kalinga Battle

He has killed 100 thousand human beings.

Was he a Muslim

6) Embargo put by George Bush in Iraq,

1/2 million children
has been killed in Iraq alone!!! Imagine these people are never called terrorists by the media.

Why

Today the majority of the non-muslims are afraid by hearing the words "JIHAD".

Jihad is an Arabic word which comes from root Arabic word "JAHADA" which means "TO STRIVE" or "TO STRUGGLE" against evil and for justice. It does not
mean killing innocents.

The difference is we stand against evil, not with evil".

You still think that ISLAM is the problem

1. The First World War, 17 million dead
(caused by non-Muslim).

2. The Second World War, 50-55 million dead (caused by non-Muslim).

3. Nagasaki atomic bombs 200000 dead
(caused by non-Muslim).

4. The War in Vietnam, over 5 million dead (caused by non-Muslim).

5. The War in Bosnia/Kosovo, over 5,00,000 dead (caused by non-Muslim).

6. The War in Iraq (so far) 12,000,000 deaths
(caused by non-Muslim).

7. Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Burma etc (caused by non-Muslim).

8. In Cambodia 1975-1979, almost 3 million deaths (caused by non-Muslim).

"MUSLIMS ARE NOT TERRORISTS
AND
TERRORISTS ARE NOT MUSLIMS."

Please remove first double standards on Killings.

What about today?

Are Killings == Terrorism?  That is certainly news to me.

Jihad is an Arabic word which comes from root Arabic word "JAHADA" which means "TO STRIVE" or "TO STRUGGLE" against evil and for justice. It does not mean killing innocents.

Indeed, the killers do not shout "Jihad!"  "Jihad!" 

They shout "Allah Ackbar!"

[MoneyChanger]

Where they get all those guns and fancy off road vehicles?
Allah Must be really great?
I mean they live in desert am i right?

[jackg]

FACTS:
All terrorists are of their own branch of religion.
Ones who call themselves Muslim are EXTREMIST MUSLIMS or EXTREMIST

The term EXTREMIST is the only way to describe their religion and they believe themselves to be a member of the Muslim faith. 

So...

TERRORISTS ARE NOT (NON EXTREMIST) MUSLIMS AND (NON EXTREMIST) MUSLIMS ARE NOT TERRORISTS?

But that's not what the OP wants us to believe, is it?  He does not want your precise definition.

He simply wants people to believe that terrorists are not muslims....

Well, when you think about it, terrorists cant really be muslims. Islam is not really different from Christianity in a sense, and in both killing the innocent or killing yourself is a major sin.

So the terrorists blowing themselves in suicidal attacks are in fact doubly condemned to Hell is they're Muslims xD

Was Yassir Arafat a Muslim?

Muslim - one who searches for peace (a representation of peace)
Islam - the search for peace
Jihad - a search for justice (technically more of freedome)

All Religioins that believe in God/Allah believe that their life belongs to God, He is the only thing who can give it or take it.

TERRORISTS ARE NOT (NON EXTREMIST) MUSLIMS AND (NON EXTREMIST) MUSLIMS ARE NOT TERRORISTS?

Extremism refers to a branch of a religion that is extreme.
The belief that one should force a religion or force death or marriage is, for me, by definition: extremism.

[Cass LeChat]

This kind of "there were lot worse killers in human history than us" argument looks a bit flawed for me. I don't care who killed who 70, 200, or 2000 years ago. Muslims are a present and future danger, therefore they are something we have to take care of.

You're sick. Muslims are an entire religion who are not any more dangerous than violent Christians. 

[Cass LeChat]

Where they get all those guns and fancy off road vehicles?
Allah Must be really great?
I mean they live in desert am i right?

The USA and other bullshit stupid countries who like to make a profit.